It is done under the guidance of Jesus through the Holy Spirit, not by some guy in a fancy robe.
Matthew 16:19 - And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
If you think this is a physical set of keys, you need a better interpreter.
The Holy Spirit guides us into truth, not a guy in a fancy robe.
John 16:13 - However, when He, the Spirit of truth , has come, He will guide you intoalltruth ; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
Not at all what I said…
I rely on prayer and study, I continue to seek truth and God reveals the truth as I grow in Him. I listen to teachers and preachers, but I don’t rely on their perspective alone, I question everyone and find the truth by asking God and continuing to seek truth relentlessly. Indeed, I listen and seek what you quoted:
Which does not rely on being taught by some guy in a fancy robe.
Different biblical sources interpret these verses differently.
John 16:7-13 : " But I tell you the truth, It is better for you that I should go away; for if I do not away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I should go, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he will rebuke the world concerning sin, concerning righteousness, and concerning Judgment. Concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; Concerning righteousness, because I go to my Father, and you will not see me again; Concerning judgment, because the leader of this world has been judged. Again, I have many other things to tell you, but you cannot grasp them now. But when the Spirit of truth , is come, he will guide you into all the truth: for he will not speak from himself, but what he hears, that he will speak: and he will make known to you things which are to come in the future. He will glorify me; because he will take of my own and show to you. Everything that my Father has is mine; this is the reason why I told you that he will take of my own and show to you." (Lamsa Bible translation from Aramaic Manuscripts)
I mean that in the context, these verses must be translated into a verse structure that still has a connection in order to get a more complete picture. If the context is only a piece of verse it is fine, but it is often used for personal gain, explaining sometimes the spiritual side of oneself because it needs support, not because of the context why this verse was revealed by God or taught by Prophet Isa in its true meaning. Well even so, I don’t think it’s a problem as long as it’s in the corridor of personal interests.
As a matter of fact, no, I didn’t notice how I changed the claim. By “interpreting the scriptures” I mean interpreting them correctly, which is the same as interpreting them infallibly.
Exactly. In other words, we have unity of doctrine, as opposed to what exists have now (outside of Catholicism) – a madhouse of doctrinal confusion, arguments and conflict, resulting in thousands of different churches and sects.
Jesus prayed that believers would have perfect unity … clearly, the hopelessly fractured Protestant world and personal revelation are not the answers to that prayer.
… none of which answers my question: Who interprets the scriptures correctly/infallibly? Can you tell me? If you don’t know, then of what use are scriptures that if they can’t be interpreted infallibly? This is why the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility makes perfect - there must be a single, trustworthy authority on earth through which God provides an infallible interpretation of scripture.
What do you think Jesus giving Peter the “keys of the kingdom of God” (Matt 16:18) is all about? It is about Jesus giving one man (and his successors down through history) the supernatural (via the Holy Spirit) power to lead the Church, which includes and the power to infallibly decide correct doctrine, which in turn entails infallible interpretation of scripture … Papal Infallibility, in other words.
It’s interesting that atheists often cite the endless, disparate interpretations of the Bible amongst Christians as a good reason to reject it.
The sins and failures of individual Catholics don’t prove that the Catholic Church is not the one, true Church founded by Jesus. As described in Rev 2 and 3, the Church is a mixture of good and bad, because the Church is comprised of flawed sinners.
Furthermore, how do you know, for example, that the death penalty is not a God-approved punishment for heresy?
Eph 4:11-16 says Christ provided the CHURCH (v.11) to lead believers … “till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (v.13).
You contradict this scripture by claiming you don’t need the Church to lead to truth but can make up your own mind. But even Paul was answerable to the Church leaders – the Spirit sent him to the Church leaders in Jerusalem to have his teachings (doctrines) approved (Gal 2:2) and when a doctrinal dispute over circumcision arose between Paul and some others, they went to the Church leaders to have the dispute settled (Acts 15:1-2).
The “keys of the kingdom of God” which Jesus first gave to Peter (Matt 16:19) are today held by “a guy in a fancy robe – his name is Pope Francis, the current leader of the Catholic Church. This is the Church referred to in Eph 4:11.
Who said anything about physical keys? The “keys” Jesus gave to Peter refer to ecclesiastic power – the power to lead the Church, which includes having the final say on correct doctrine. What happened to those “keys” of Church leadership? Can you tell me?
[quote]John 16:13 - However, when He, the Spirit of truth , has come, He will guide you intoalltruth ; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come … I rely on prayer and study, I continue to seek truth and God reveals the truth as I grow in Him. I listen to teachers and preachers, but I don’t rely on their perspective alone, I question everyone and find the truth by asking God and continuing to seek truth relentlessly. [/quote]Oh, so the HS guides you “into all truth” … but not yet! How will you know when you reach the “truth” point? Are the doctrines you hold the truth or not?
I disagree this is a proper use of the term infallible (as classically defined). Perhaps it’s different in normal Catholic usage. But in my understanding, an interpretation can be viable or correct short of being infallible, especially when we are dealing with large-scale understanding (i.e., more than an exegetical point in a given passage).
Is this really true inside Catholicism? Other than top-tier things, Catholic theologians disagree about lots of things, don’t they? (Though I grew up Catholic, I wasn’t a very good one so my knowledge of Catholicism is not great.)
I think the early creeds begin to provide us with the necessary unity.
Yes, but does this necessitate uniformity in every particular matter of doctrine? What type of unity is he talking about? And, though he prayed for it, does that guarantee it will be fulfilled this side of heaven?
Agreed. But subscribing to a Catholicism that, to many of us, is counter to biblical revelation at key points, is not the solution.
Based on what was said above on infallibility, this is our fundamental disagreement it seems. But because the Scriptures are infallible, and God has given us the tools to interpret it, we strive toward the best understanding. It’s a communal thing (past and present), so we strive to “rightly handle” the word of God. I know it’s messy and complicated. I just don’t know of another option (since I disagree with the Catholic alternative, nor do I think Catholicism itself really escapes this entanglement ultimately).
I understand why this makes sense from your point of view, but it assumes me accepting the whole system (which I find ungrounded biblically).
This text has obviously been hashed out over and over. While I do see this giving Peter a specific leadership role (against many Protestants who think the “rock” is Peter’s confession), but I don’t see the role of Peter (who was married by the way) as an archetype for the pope. I simply don’t. Part of my rationale would be that the singular “you” (Peter) in Matt 16 is transformed into a plural “you” in Matt 18:18-20, so the individual authority is now invested in the entire group of disciples.
But, note the circular reasoning a Catholic must use here. This text provides biblical basis for papal infallibility. How do I know? Well, apparently b/c the infallible interpretation of the pope, which is the sole source of unity, has said so.
Atheists often cite lots of things, including the teachings (and history) of the Catholic church.
A bit scatter shot isn’t it to introduce a new rabbit trail? But my argument (which I’m not providing here) would be based on understanding the change from old to new covenant (though not even the old covenant never prescribes death penalty for heresy per se), including the oft-used division of OT law (agreed upon by Catholics and Protestants) into moral, civil, and ceremonial categories. How would you answer, especially given the Catholic (often pope-directed) killing of heretics?
The pope is just a man. I am just a man. Neither is perfect. The Holy Spirit is perfect and directs the imperfect church as God provides revelation to those that are called individually (I hate to break it to you, but many, many in the Catholic and Christian churches worldwide will not be saved - Matt 7:21).
Peter’s understanding of who Jesus was/is/is to come earns the “keys” to heaven in that scripture. Read the chapter from the beginning, Jesus asks Peter who Peter thinks Jesus is…Peter answers correctly and Jesus states that that understanding is the rock of salvation - knowing Jesus…Jesus then promises the “keys” which is the Holy Spirit (John 14:16. 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, 16:13). Anyone can hold the keys, that is the point of the scripture. No part of that scripture points toward the Catholic church or any church for that matter (apart from using the word “church” (vs 18) - which actually means “all believers called by the Father” (vs 17). It seems a gross misinterpretation to me if your church is preaching that you must only believe what the church leaders teach.
Firstly, Paul established churches and in his time would have been the final authority, specifically in regard to gentiles as Jesus Himself called him to the ministry of bringing the gospel to the gentiles. The Catholic church wants you to believe that you must only follow them so that you support them financially. It’s all about money and power, not salvation. The Catholic premise of salvation through works is also designed to control you, and is not what God’s word teaches.
My truth may be different than yours, but I’m feeling pretty good about my truth at the moment.
The “church” is not what you think it is. It is not a building, or a structure of leadership, or a set of bylaws or doctrines or creeds or anything man made…it is the collective spiritual assembly of believers of Christ, his body.
I didn’t want to wade into this discussion, but it was necessary to interject here. You repeatedly told me in the past that it is only Jesus that decides who gets saved or not, but you have outrightly condemned the Catholic Church here even though you refused to agree that Hitler and Pol pot, two historic mass murderers, were condemned after they died. That’s hypocritical.
I have condemned no one, I have judged no one, I have no authority to say one way or the other who is saved…neither do you. My pointing out the failures of religious doctrines beyond what the bible says does not mean I condemn anyone. Believe what you want…my refusal to judge is not hypocritical, I’m sorry you don’t get it.
Galatians 4:16 - Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?
I’ll support @Mark10.45 here. He did not condemn any specific person. Rather, he made a reference to scripture which implied that many will not be saved.
Oh my. You are right. I misread him. Sorry @Mark10.45
However, I still think we can reasonably decide who will not be saved especially if they are dead. The bible clearly states that murderers will not inherit eternal life, and Hitler was a spectacular one, thus Hitler will not be saved. Christians also have to implicitly assume that non-Christians wouldn’t be saved when they preach the gospel to them, otherwise it would be pointless.
The introduction I believe says it all (at 3:00)…God never gives up on any of us and only Jesus can determine the condition of our hearts and judge our lives. I would not say one way or the other whether Berkowitz is saved, but after listening to him, I can see the peace that he has found in Jesus.
On the flipside, Matthew 23 is a great chapter where Jesus rips apart the religious leaders of his day, basically letting them know that they are dead inside (whitewashed tombs) and will never enter the kingdom of heaven without repenting…and those were the hyper-religious “church” crowd.
As a Christian, I am commanded not to judge…however, I would not defend Hitler’s salvation, but I also wouldn’t defend Gandhi’s salvation. Only God can see your heart.
I guess I don’t see it this way…we are commissioned to spread the gospel, not to decide who needs to hear it. When I share (Christian or non), I do so without judgment on the other person. I may disagree with a statement they make, but I argue the truth of the word, not the condition of their heart.
I am making a bible-based claim here about Hitler’s eternal fate. The bible clearly states that some people will not receive eternal life, and it gives various reasons why. If a person commits murder and dies without repentance, that means that person is eternally doomed. Hitler ordered the execution of millions of Jews, and he committed suicide to avoid capture by the allied forces. He fulfilled the criteria required to lose eternal life before he died and that’s why I can say with a high degree of confidence that he was not saved. Its too obvious to deny.
You are again trying to deny the obvious. Christians preach the gospel with the aim of bringing the lost into the light of Christ. In other words, we assume unbelievers or backsliding Christians are on the wide road leading to destruction and do our best to help them avert this. So the fact remains that we have to assume that people who don’t share our faith are doomed to destruction, encouraging us to persevere in bringing them the lifesaving gospel of Jesus.
None of us are qualified to judge the eternal fate of any human being, no matter sinful they appear to have been. Neither is it anyone’s business, except God’s. So any discussions of this kind are pointless, futile and serve no good purpose.
I am not saying we ultimately decide who gets saved or not, but we can come can to a logical conclusion on who is or is not saved. I mean this especially for those who are dead. That’s all I saying.
Peter was just a imperfect man too, yet Jesus gave him “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 16:19) - supernatural power working through an imperfect man.
Jesus gave certain men – all of whom were/are imperfect - the power to forgive sins (John 20:21-23)- supernatural power working through imperfect men.
God gave the apostles – all of whom were imperfect men - the ability to cast out demons, cure the sick and raise the dead - supernatural power working through imperfect men.
God gave the prophets – all of whom were imperfect men - the ability to utter infallible words and to prophesy - supernatural power working through imperfect men.
God also gave imperfect men the power to infallible record God’s thoughts in the Bible – supernatural power working through imperfect men.
When Peter died, the “keys” were passed to his successor(s), on whom God bestowed the same supernatural powers – so the present Pope holds the “keys” today, along with the same supernatural powers of Infallibility that Jesus gave to Peter.
If God gave fallible men the power to infallibly record God’s thoughts in the Bible and gave fallible men the power to infallibly proclaim God’s words (as the prophets did), then God certainly has the power to make the leader of his Church (the Pope) infallibly interpret the scriptures and infallibly decide what correct doctrine is. Think about it.
That is a weak argument: All the other apostles and all hundreds of other believers believed the same things Peter did about who Jesus was – yet Jesus gave to the “keys of the kingdom of God” to only one man, Peter.[quote] Anyone can hold the keys, that is the point of the scripture.[/quote]
Nonsense. YOU hold the “keys of the kingdom of God” and “what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”? I don’t think so! That would mean your interpretation of the Bible is perfect and you teach infallible doctrines.
Right, so you read some words in the Bible and now you think you are qualified to sit on the Judgement Throne of Christ and judge the eternal fate of others. I hate to break it to you, but the reality is, you know nothing – you are not even qualified to judge yourself - so please stop talking like a deluded, bigoted fool.
You may well be right … I am not academically trained in theology (just a bumbling amateur trying to make sense), so I apologize if I have used the term “infallible” incorrectly.
In Catholicism, it is the Church (and ultimately, the Pope) that decides the correct interpretation of important scriptures. Individual Catholics are not free to interpret scripture however they see fit (save for inconsequential and trivial verses).
All Catholics are expected to accept all Catholic doctrines and dogmas and all Catholics worldwide are taught the same doctrines and dogmas. Outside of these doctrines and dogmas (”top-tier things”), Catholics are free to have their own opinion, so naturally, controversies arise amongst Catholic theologians. As St. Augustine used to say, “In essential matters, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty” (or something to that effect).
As a basic guide to Christianity, that’s true, but the Creeds (Apostle’s and Nicene) don’t contain everything a Catholic is bound to believe (even though these two Creeds are recited (alternatively) during every Mass).
What creed binds all non-Catholic Christians? I’m not aware of one.
Jesus prayed that his Church would have perfect unity, as he and his Father have perfect unity (John 17:11). So I should think that would include – at the very least - unity of doctrine.
Holding different doctrines is hardly a recipe for perfect unity – in fact, it is a sure-fire recipe for conflict and disunity. As the prophet Amos said, “How can two walk together if they disagree?”
Notice that Jesus’ prayer for perfect unity is for believers who are “in the world”, so Jesus is praying for Christian unity on this side of Heaven, not the other side.
Doctrinal unity is an essential part of what Jesus prayed for, and that is what the Catholic Church has.
Rejecting the Catholic Church and her infallible doctrines opposes the will of God and is antithetical to what Jesus prayed for. Catholicism is the one and only “solution” and the one and only answer to Jesus’ prayer.
However, I don’t believe you and others like you will lose your salvation for be deceived into making an honest mistake. God will save those who love him, no matter how flawed their doctrine and how seriously they’ve been misled.
I was once anti-Catholic too, but the Holy Spirit eventually opened my eyes and mind to the truth.
If to “strive towards the best understanding” is the best you can hope for, I feel sorry for you. I don’t want to “strive towards the best understanding” – I want the Holy Spirt to give me the correct understanding … now! As a Catholic, that’s what I have – now - the correct understanding.
Protestants have been striving towards the best understanding since the sixteenth century and they’re more disjointed and disparate now than they ever were! When are they going to stop striving for the best understanding and actually arrive at the correct understanding?
… only because you operate outside the peace and certainty provided by the one, true Church that Jesus founded - the Catholic Church.
“God is not the author of confusion” (1Cor 14:33) – yet your never-ending striving for doctrinal truth is “messy and complicated”, which suggests you are on the wrong track.
Rightly handling the word of God is not in the least “messy and complicated” for me – all I have to do is follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, which is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1Tim 3:15) and the “fullness” of Christ (Eph 1:22-23).
Glad to hear it. Most Protestants bend over backwards to deny Peter’s leadership because doing so is getting uncomfortably close to agreeing with the Catholic Church.
I like to ask such Protestants this question: Why did Jesus, in the very first sentence he ever spoke to Simon, change his name to Cephas, which means “rock” (John 1:42)? They can’t tell me, although answer is obvious when one reads Matt 16:18.
I don’t know if the death penalty for heresy is approved by God or not. Pope Francis would say “No”, but that would be his personal opinion, and not an “infallible” (ex cathedra) declaration. I need to dig deeper on that one.
… which is how the Catholic Church operates: The Pope does not operate alone; he is supported by the whole college of bishops. The Pope takes into consideration the opinions of all the bishops and is often advised by them, but it is the Pope who makes the final - infallible - decision on important matters, such as doctrine. The power that is given to the Pope to make the final – infallible - decision is precisely the same power that Jesus gave to Peter (“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of God” - Matt 16:19).
Not entirely. The scriptures speak for themselves - Jesus gave the “keys” to only one man, Peter.
Speaking of which … How do you know you can interpret the scriptures for yourself? Because your interpretation of the scriptures says you can.
so my knowledge of Catholicism is not great.)